Wayne Grant was convicted of burglary and was sentenced as a recidivist to serve 20 years in confinement. He appeals from the order denying his motion for new trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine. We find no error and affirm. 1. Grant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of burglary because the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime, specifically that he entered the victim’s store with the intent to commit a theft therein.1 On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determine whether the evidence is sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia .2 The verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.3 Properly viewed, the evidence adduced at trial shows that at approximately 3:00 a.m. on May 28, 2004, the police notified Mi Hae Rivera that her store, Glennville Beauty Supply, had been broken into. The police had responded to an alarm at the store, and when they arrived, they discovered that the glass in the front door had been shattered and a glass showcase had been busted. Rivera confirmed that numerous silver rings and other jewelry had been taken from the showcase. The police found several rings in the road across from the store, and Rivera identified them as belonging to her.
The police were able to collect blood samples from the front door and from the broken glass that had fallen inside the showcase. A forensic biologist employed by the GBI performed a DNA analysis on one of the blood samples and testified that it matched Grant’s DNA sample, which was admitted by stipulation.4